All things concerning Azog and Bolg

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think he doesn't look like something that was (or whose ancestors were) once an Elf.

Do you think that the other Orcs or Goblins in the films look more like something that was or whose answers were once an Elf?

[Smaug's voice]

I haven't thought of the boldogs, PtB. Must think of that. Good point. (though the smooth-skin is still bothersome. Very much.)

I think he doesn't look like something that was (or whose ancestors were) once an Elf.

Do you think that the other Orcs or Goblins in the films look more like something that was or whose ancestors were once an Elf?

Yes, I gave three pics for comparison in the last page (all the three from a similar angle) and I find them "evolutionarily" similar than Azog.
Goblins pose a problem though, being totally different. But living in the dark in caves, I can live with their more mutilated forms (though I like the Moria goblins better).

I have to think about the Goblin King though! But he is far more entertaining than Azog, for me.

[yovargas]

I agree that the weirdly smooth skin looks wrong. It bugs me too. It gives him a fake quality and it also makes his "scars" look like...I don't know what but not like scars since scars aren't generally that smooth.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Old scars can certainly be smooth. I have some myself!

[Smaug's voice]

But it's not the scars that is the major problem (for me) here.
The skin is so smooth that it makes the scars look fake, imo.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I agree that he doesn't look as solid as, say, Lurtz does (probably because he isn't), but as a creature design, he is ten times more interesting than the "hero" orcs from LOTR.

[Túrin Turambar]

I think he doesn't look like something that was (or whose ancestors were) once an Elf.

Do you think that the other Orcs or Goblins in the films look more like something that was or whose answers were once an Elf?

OT, but when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and LotR, how seriously was he entertaining the 'Orcs are corrupted Elves' idea? (I figured that you would be the person most likely to know, based on which writings were current at the time).

I have always wondered if the explanation for the origin of Orcs in the Silmarillion isn't completely a red herring (as I've discussed elsewhere). But I do recall that at the time of the original Lost Tales Tolkien had the Orcs being produced by Melko from the subterranean heat and slime. I don't recall what his final views on Orc origins were.

[kzer_za]

Treebeard refers to orcs as a mockery of elves in LotR, though that doesn't necessarily mean the same as corrupted elves.
"But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of elves."
- Page 486, "Treebeard"

But while I haven't read the relevant literature from HoME my understanding is that Tolkien kept experimenting with different ideas of orc origins late in his life because he found the orcs morally and theologically problematic and felt like it needed to be fixed. He never settled on anything definite though, just like Galadriel's backstory. So there's really no single answer to orc origins and whether they're irredeemably evil.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

OT, but when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and LotR, how seriously was he entertaining the 'Orcs are corrupted Elves' idea? (I figured that you would be the person most likely to know, based on which writings were current at the time).

The conception was definitely in flux, but at the time of the early Quenta Silmarillion and its associated annals, the concept was changing from Melko creating the Orcs in the deeps of time, long before the Elves awakened, to him making them in mockery of the Elves (consistent with Treebeard's statement). So at the time of the writing of LOTR (and of course the Hobbit), there was indication (to the best of my recollection) that Orcs were corrupted Elves or Men. However, that conception did come into existence in the first phase of the drafting of the later Quenta, which took place before LOTR was published. But even then he wrote a handwritten note saying "Alter this. Orcs are not Elvish."

[quoteI have always wondered if the explanation for the origin of Orcs in the Silmarillion isn't completely a red herring (as I've discussed elsewhere).[/quote]

I recall that you had a very long and detailed post on the subject, I think back on TORC.

But I do recall that at the time of the original Lost Tales Tolkien had the Orcs being produced by Melko from the subterranean heat and slime. I don't recall what his final views on Orc origins were.

I don't think he ever really finalized his views. But as PtB suggests, his essay printed in Myths Transformed suggests that his final idea on the subject was that Orcs were beasts in humanized shape, with no fear of their own, and their speech merely "reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor." Except for a few of the great Orcs, who were Orc-formed Maiar, or Boldogs. But even in this text he suggests that it was possible that it was "possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs. These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) - and later Men." And in other texts given in that section, he still maintains the theory that Orcs were corrupted Elves. So I don't think a final decision was ever reached for sure.

Edited to add: But in terms of Azog, I think that his pale, smooth skin contributes to the sense of him as different, and greater, than the other Orcs. In short, a Boldog. I originally was not a fan of his design, but now I like very, very much.

[kzer_za]

I don't think he ever really finalized his views. But as PtB suggests, his essay printed in Myths Transformed suggests that his final idea on the subject was that Orcs were beasts in humanized shape, with no fear of their own, and their speech merely "reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor."

There are moments in LotR where they appear to show intelligence of their own, though.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tolkien does address that, at least sideways:

Even their rebellious critical words — he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots), in The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

[Alatar]

I have to say, I prefer the idea of corrupted Elves.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I prefer the idea as well, but it does create a huge philosophical conundrum, as Tolkien was well aware. Namely, if they are corrupted elves, shouldn't it be possible to un-corrupt them? Shouldn't they be redeemable?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I guess it is time for me to resuscitate my old theory about the Orcs.

Here is the dilemma:

On the one hand, it is absolutely imperative that the Orcs do not have redeemable souls. The whole moral structure of LOTR and indeed all of Tolkien's work collapses like a house of cards if they did.

On the other hand, the best conclusion that one can reach from the full body of Tolkien's work is that the Orcs came from beings that did have souls (fëa), possibly men but also undoubtedly including Elves corrupted and twisted by Melkor, in addition to some Maian spirits that also were subverted by Melkor.

How then can these two seemingly contradictory points be reconciled? I find the answer in, of all places, the Athrabeth.

As I have discussed before, one of the key concepts discussed in the commentary and notes that follow the Athrabeth is the idea that "the separation of fëa and hröa is 'unnatural', and proceeds not from the original design but from the 'Marring of Arda', which is due to the operations of Melkor."

So hear is my answer to the dilemma. The Orcs originated from the hröar of originally incarnate beings (whether Elves or Men or both, and even from some Maian spirits as well) that Melkor managed to separate from their fëar. They had no wills of their own, but rather were animated by Melkor's own will, and later by Sauron's as Melkor's proxy. They were similar in that way to the beings created by Aulë before Eru took pity on him and them and gave them their own independent wills.

This would even explain why the Orcs "magically" died when Sauron was destroyed; with no will of their own there was nothing to animate them once Melkor's proxy was destroyed.

That's my story, and I'm still sticking to it!

[Smaug's voice]

I prefer the idea as well, but it does create a huge philosophical conundrum, as Tolkien was well aware. Namely, if they are corrupted elves, shouldn't it be possible to un-corrupt them? Shouldn't they be redeemable?

Seeing Gollum was the corrupted form of a hobbit shouldn't he be redeemable as well? But he had just one chance, which was lost.

I can assume the same for the orcs. Perhaps there could be a one-in-a-million chance to "uncorrupt" them, but that chance simply never comes across.

[Smaug's voice]

Sorry, didn't see your post V.

I guess it is time for me to resuscitate my old theory about the Orcs.

On the one hand, it is absolutely imperative that the Orcs do not have redeemable souls. The whole moral structure of LOTR and indeed all of Tolkien's work collapses like a house of cards if they did.

But would it still be a dilemma if we see the account in LOTR as a victor's account? Victors who view baddies as uncouth and irredeemable, exaggerating what perhaps really isn't.

On the other hand, the best conclusion that one can reach from the full body of Tolkien's work is that the Orcs came from beings that did have souls (fëa), possibly men but also undoubtedly including Elves corrupted and twisted by Melkor, in addition to some Maian spirits that also were subverted by Melkor.

How then can these two seemingly contradictory points be reconciled? I find the answer in, of all places, the Athrabeth.

As I have discussed before, one of the key concepts discussed in the commentary and notes that follow the Athrabeth is the idea that "the separation of fëa and hröa is 'unnatural', and proceeds not from the original design but from the 'Marring of Arda', which is due to the operations of Melkor."

So hear is my answer to the dilemma. The Orcs originated from the hröar of originally incarnate beings (whether Elves or Men or both, and even from some Maian spirits as well) that Melkor managed to separate from their fëar. They had no wills of their own, but rather were animated by Melkor's own will, and later by Sauron's as Melkor's proxy. They were similar in that way to the beings created by Aulë before Eru took pity on him and them and gave them their own independent wills.

This would even explain why the Orcs "magically" died when Sauron was destroyed; with no will of their own there was nothing to animate them once Melkor's proxy was destroyed.

That's my story, and I'm still sticking to it!

The rest of this is fascinating!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But would it still be a dilemma if we see the account in LOTR as a victor's account? Victors who view baddies as uncouth and irredeemable, exaggerating what perhaps really isn't.

You can do that, if you wish to strip the story of all of its moral force.

[axordil]

But would it still be a dilemma if we see the account in LOTR as a victor's account? Victors who view baddies as uncouth and irredeemable, exaggerating what perhaps really isn't.

You can do that, if you wish to strip the story of all of its moral force.

Nah, just the Gondor plot. Frodo's sacrifice is really the moral core of the story, and it doesn't really depend on the theological status of orcs.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If LOTR is seen as a "victor's account," we can assume that Frodo pushed Gollum over the precipice.

Edited to add: Or that he was in league with Sauron, and then double-crossed him.

[Alatar]

Why would anyone assume that?

Have to say I hate the idea of "fëa and hröa". Smacks of midichlorians to me. Some things are better left as "unexplained vistas" as a very wise man once said.